The limits of a system that should make you think.
AI is neither intelligent nor creative. What we know as computer users are language models that represent a natural language interface to a powerful data pool. This data pool is created through so-called “machine learning”, which is nothing more than a systematic mediation of information available to all of us. This fact alone excludes creativity as far as possible. Anything that goes beyond the combination of existing information simply does not exist. Let’s talk about AI limits!
It is easy to show that AI can only reproduce what already exists and that this depends on the learning process:
Answer: Here is your full red wine glass! Let me know if you want any changes. 🍷😊
Second attempt: Please draw it more full!
Full glass of red wine, second attempt by ChatGPT.
Here’s your red wine glass full to the brim! 🍷 Hopefully without spilling. 😉 Let me know if you want any adjustments!
Let us try another commonly used AI tool to check the situation
Microsoft CoPilot
Prompt: Please draw a full glass of red wine.
Full glass of red wine, first attempt by Microsoft Copilot.
Please make the glass really full!
Full glass of red wine, second attempt by Microsoft Copilot.
Here’s a red wine glass that’s really filled to the brim! I hope this is exactly what you had in mind. 🍷
I mention that this outcome does not match with the asked picture. Copilot gives up: You’re right, it seems I’m currently struggling to make a really full glass of red wine look photorealistic. My skills have their limits when it comes to certain details or precision in generated images.
Why is that – what is the reason for this phenomenon?
AI does not understand what the user wants at all. In plain language: The prompt is an input that is interpreted according to learned patterns and implemented on a random basis. However, the random hit rate – due to incredibly expensive training – is close to 100%.
The prompt is analysed in an attempt to provide an answer from the knowledge base. In our query, images of wine glasses are searched for, the information is incorporated in red and then an image is created based on the hits found.
The crucial point is the data material: the image training is apparently done with wine glasses that are well filled. Apparently, there are no images of full glasses, and this condition is not explicitly explained. The AI does not understand the term “full” in this context because AI generally does not understand anything.
The experiment with the water glasses
Please draw a photorealistic picture of 4 glasses of water standing next to each other: The first is empty, the second is half full, the third is three-quarters full, and the fourth is “completely” full.
These water glasses are created by ChatGPT. Prompt: Please draw a photorealistic picture of 4 glasses of water standing next to each other: The first is empty, the second is half full, the third is three-quarters full, and the fourth is completely full.
Water glasses created by Microsoft Copilot. Prompt: Please draw a photorealistic picture of 4 glasses of water standing next to each other: The first is empty, the second is half full, the third is three-quarters full, and the fourth is completely full.Evaluate the results yourself!
What do we conclude from this? Where are AI limits?
AI can be a useful tool for completing tasks that are tedious and time-consuming. but – AI has limits!
Anything related to text works really well because of the excellent language models. Automated queries such as creating lists, reformatting, pulling common keywords from a text also work well.
Writing a small program that renames all images in a folder according to a certain predefined logic is also possible without any problems and is created to the satisfaction of the client.
Caution is advised when it comes to factual knowledge, things related to creativity or complex logical contexts.
AI always provides an answer – but it is the user’s responsibility to analyse and make any necessary corrections. Never forget! AI limits are always to be considered!
What does AI say on this subject?
ChatGPT
The Limits of AI: Creativity and Intelligent Connections
AI has made impressive progress in many areas, but it still has clear limitations, especially in creativity and the ability to make truly intelligent connections. Below is a detailed look at these limits, including the field of image generation.
1. Creativity: Can AI Truly Be Creative?
AI can simulate creativity but does not experience it. Human creativity comes from emotions, personal experiences, and deep understanding, while AI works by analysing patterns in existing data. This leads to several key limitations:
Lack of Originality: AI generates content based on learned patterns. It cannot create something truly new in the way humans can.
No Personal Insight: AI does not have its own thoughts, emotions, or experiences, so it cannot produce ideas based on intuitive leaps.
Struggles with Abstract Thinking: AI finds it difficult to understand or create works based on deeper philosophical, artistic, or cultural insights.
Example: A human artist may invent an entirely new art style based on personal emotions, but AI can only remix elements from existing styles.
2. Intelligent Connections: Does AI Really “Think”?
AI can analyse vast amounts of data and detect patterns that humans might miss. However, its reasoning is mechanical, not truly intelligent. The main limitations include:
No Real Understanding: AI processes information statistically but does not “understand” concepts as humans do. It cannot truly grasp irony, sarcasm, or deep meanings.
Context Struggles: AI can make connections based on data but often misses the bigger picture. It may link two ideas incorrectly or fail to see an obvious relationship.
Logical Errors: AI does not reason like a human—it follows predefined rules, so it sometimes produces flawed or nonsensical conclusions.
Example: AI can summarise a news article but might misinterpret a metaphor or fail to connect it to historical events in a meaningful way.
3. Image Generation: Strengths and Weaknesses
AI-generated images have advanced significantly, but they still have weaknesses:
Strengths:
✔ Fast and detailed: AI can produce high-quality images in seconds. ✔ Style adaptation: AI can replicate existing art styles effectively. ✔ Endless variations: AI can generate multiple versions of an idea quickly.
Weaknesses:
❌ Inconsistencies: AI sometimes struggles with small details, like correct hand or eye placement. ❌ Lack of deep meaning: AI-generated images can look artistic but lack true emotional depth. ❌ Creativity limits: AI can only remix existing styles and elements—it does not invent truly original art.
Example: An AI can create an impressive surreal painting, but a human artist adds symbolism and personal meaning that AI cannot replicate.
Conclusion: AI as a Tool, Not a Creator
AI is a powerful tool for assisting with creativity and analysis, but it does not truly think or create in the way humans do. It can generate impressive content but lacks the personal insight, originality, and deep understanding that define human intelligence.
For now, AI is best used as a support system—helping humans explore ideas, enhance productivity, and refine creative work. But true creativity and deep connections? Those remain uniquely human strengths.
Microsoft Copilot
The boundaries of artificial intelligence can be understood in various domains. Let me break it down clearly for you, focusing on creativity, intelligent connections, and especially image generation:
Creativity
Strengths: AI excels at generating original ideas and creating content based on patterns, examples, and prompts. For instance, it can write poetry, suggest innovative solutions, or develop novel concepts when guided.
Limitations: True creativity often involves emotional depth, personal experiences, and abstract intuition—qualities AI doesn’t possess. It can mimic creativity but lacks the emotional context behind human artistry.
Intelligent Connections
Strengths: AI is outstanding in identifying and analysing complex patterns in vast datasets. It can synthesise information and connect ideas that might not be immediately obvious to humans. For instance, it can offer cross-disciplinary insights by linking diverse fields of study.
Limitations: AI struggles with subjective interpretations, cultural nuances, and emotionally driven decisions. Its connections are based purely on logic and data, not lived experiences or instinct.
Image Generation
Strengths: AI can generate visually appealing and imaginative images based on text descriptions. This capability opens opportunities in design, marketing, and storytelling.
Limitations: There are challenges with precision. For instance, AI might fail at getting specific details accurate, as you observed with the wineglass examples. AI also cannot recreate exact replicas of real-world objects or respect all stylistic nuances in some cases.
General Boundaries of AI and AI limits
Ethics and Safety: AI cannot engage in harmful, illegal, or unethical tasks, ensuring a responsible interaction framework.
Human-like Understanding: While it can process language and simulate conversations, it doesn’t “understand” concepts as humans do.
Dependence on Input: AI needs clear, specific input to perform effectively. Ambiguity or lack of context can lead to errors.
Imagination vs. Reality: AI “imagines” outcomes based on its training data but doesn’t inherently grasp the reality or functionality of its outputs.
In summary, AI is a remarkable tool, but its abilities still fall short of human intuition, emotion, and precision in certain areas. These limitations offer a collaborative space for human creativity to thrive alongside AI’s computational power.
The intermediate project meeting of the BonJour! Project, organised by Europäische Bildungsinitiative, took place in Wiener Neustadt, bringing together all project partners for an engaging and productive exchange. The meeting was characterised by a positive working climate, valuable discussions, and exciting presentations, reflecting the significant progress made across all work packages.
Key Topics and Outcomes
The meeting opened with WP1: Administration, where partners received feedback on the intermediate report, discussed financial matters, and reviewed necessary amendments. Additionally, key dates for the final Transnational Partner Meeting (TPM) were confirmed. Updates on the evaluation process were also presented.
A major focus was on WP3, with insightful presentations and discussions on the Handbook and the next steps in the local training course for educators. Partners exchanged views on the competencies of educators, ensuring that the training approach meets high-quality standards.
The development of the low-threshold learning platform (WP4) was another highlight of the meeting. Partners were introduced to the possible learning content formats and technical requirements, followed by in-depth discussions leading to key decisions on content structure and methodology. A crucial aspect was the development of learning spaces, both for individual learning on the platform and group-based onsite training. The topic of content translation and localisation was also addressed, ensuring accessibility and cultural adaptation. For this platform, a specific colour coding system has been developed.
The colour coding system of the platform will make it easier for training course participants to navigate in the platform.
A special session focused on training for seniors in Wrocław, where partners explored evaluation methods for assessing seniors’ digital and media competencies. This provided valuable insights into adapting training to meet the specific needs of older learners.
Another essential area of discussion was WP5: Dissemination and Improvement. Strategies were reviewed to enhance visibility, engage stakeholders, and further improve project outcomes.
One of the most exciting aspects was the discussion on recognition frameworks based on Micro-Credentials, which will provide structured validation and certification for learners, ensuring their newly acquired skills are recognised.
Final Reflections
The meeting concluded with a WP1 administration summary, highlighting key takeaways and ensuring that all partners are aligned for the final project phases.
Overall, this meeting was a great success—a combination of valuable exchanges, collaborative spirit, and concrete progress. The presentations on the learning platform sparked enthusiasm, and the extensive discussions on content development and competencies helped shape the next steps. The meeting reaffirmed the shared commitment to developing a high-quality, accessible, and inclusive learning environment for older adults and educators alike.
The partners left motivated and inspired, ready to implement the next phases of the project with clarity and confidence.
Follow-Up of the BonJour! Meeting
This BonJour! Meeting – as an intermediate event of the project – will be followed by the final meeting in November in Madeira.
This text summarises the results of the focus rounds implemented at the project’s start. The Fundacja PSP (Poland) team analysed and transferred the provided feedback into readable form.
Andragogical Approaches for Teaching Media Literacy and Digital Skills to Adults 55+
Teaching older adults media literacy and digital skills requires a practical, interactive, and flexible pedagogical approach. Educators must consider seniors’ cognitive and emotional needs and ensure that learning is accessible, confidence-building, and relevant to real-life situations. Various countries emphasize hands-on learning, structured guidance, and supportive environments to foster practical digital literacy.
1. Effective Teaching Methods and Approaches
Country-Based Overview
Poland (PSP & IFAE): The most effective methods include Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, learning-by-doing, and creating a friendly, patient atmosphere. A mix of theory and practice, supported by interactive discussions and small-group work, helps seniors engage meaningfully.
Turkey: Seniors benefit most from demonstration-based learning, interactive group work, and discovery-based methods. Educators must address their fear of making mistakes by providing step-by-step guidance and practical examples.
Italy: Experience-based learning is preferred, with an emphasis on cooperative learning, micro-objectives, and hands-on practice. Teaching should focus on transformative learning, helping seniors reflect on and apply new skills in daily life.
Austria: Learning approaches must be tailored to individual needs while emphasizing multimodal and intergenerational learning. Confidence-building is key, as many older adults fear failure and embarrassment when engaging with digital tools.
Best Practices Across Countries
Hands-on learning through trial and error.
Small-group discussions and cooperative learning to foster peer support.
Blended learning approaches combining face-to-face training with online reinforcement.
Experiential methods to ensure relevance to daily life.
Encouraging mistake-making as part of the learning process.
Poland (PSP & IFAE): Seniors prefer one-on-one instruction, group work, and trial-and-error learning. Visual and structured learning materials (such as blackboards, tables, and printed notes) help reinforce concepts.
Turkey: Hands-on, interactive methods are preferred, including peer-to-peer learning and video-based instruction. Seniors also benefit from structured learning goals to stay motivated.
Italy: Face-to-face learning, practical exercises, and video tutorials are the most effective. Seniors favour cooperation over individualism and need structured, goal-oriented teaching.
Austria: Confidence-building techniques and intergenerational learning are crucial in keeping seniors engaged.
Best Practices Across Countries
Group learning and peer-to-peer support foster collaboration.
Face-to-face teaching is essential for building trust.
Simple and clear instructions make learning accessible.
Practical tasks and real-life applications boost motivation.
Structured lessons with well-defined goals help maintain engagement.
Poland (PSP & IFAE): Learning materials should be clear, visually accessible, and well-structured. Printed notes, booklets, and handouts should accompany lessons. Seniors prefer no formal grading, tests, or learning for self-development rather than certification.
Turkey: Printouts, videos, and slides are preferred. Learning materials should be designed for repetition and gradual skill-building.
Italy: Materials must meet accessibility standards (e.g., Verdana font size 14+, line spacing 1.5+). Short sentences and clear explanations reduce cognitive overload.
Austria: Various media formats, including interactive elements, printed resources, and hands-on workshops, are recommended.
Best Practices Across Countries
Use large fonts and high-contrast materials for readability.
Provide printed resources (booklets, summary sheets) for reference.
Keep explanations short and clear to aid comprehension.
Ensure accessibility standards for digital content.
Offer structured, progressive learning materials to build skills step by step.
Poland (PSP & IFAE): Short lessons (1–1.5 hours) with frequent breaks work best. Educators should ensure clear objectives, flexible lesson plans, and plenty of time for questions and discussions.
Turkey: Practical exercises should be repeated at home to reinforce learning. Group projects and intergenerational learning can increase engagement.
Italy: In-person sessions should focus on skill acquisition and social interaction, while online learning should reinforce concepts. Sessions should be limited to 45–60 minutes to prevent fatigue.
Austria: Confidence-building is essential; educators should encourage mistake-making as part of the learning process and use multimodal teaching approaches.
Best Practices Across Countries
Short, well-structured lessons with frequent breaks.
A combination of in-person and online learning is needed to reinforce skills.
Encouraging independent practice at home.
Providing social interaction opportunities to prevent isolation.
Building confidence and motivation by creating a supportive environment.
5. Addressing Challenges and Fears in Senior Learning
Common Challenges Across Countries
Technological barriers: Seniors struggle with complex interfaces, small fonts, and unfamiliar digital tools.
Fear of making mistakes: Many older adults hesitate to engage due to self-doubt and lack of confidence.
Memory and cognitive difficulties: Forgetfulness and slower information processing require repetition and simplified learning materials.
Social and cultural barriers: Some learners struggle with modern terminology or topics like multiculturalism or digital privacy.
Country-Based Overview
Poland (PSP & IFAE): Educators should provide active listening, personalized support, and clear communication. Engaging workshops help build confidence.
Turkey: Seniors need step-by-step guidance and supportive learning environments to reduce fear. Group-based learning helps prevent individual frustration.
Italy: Educators must be patient and encouraging, addressing fears of judgment and failure. Lessons should connect to personal experiences to make learning more relatable.
Austria: Seniors should be encouraged to embrace mistakes and view learning as a process. Intergenerational exchange can help build confidence.
Best Practices Across Countries
Create a safe, non-judgmental learning environment.
Encourage mistake-making as part of learning.
Provide step-by-step support to overcome technological barriers.
Use engaging and interactive teaching strategies.
Relate lessons to real-life experiences to increase motivation.
Poland (PSP & IFAE): PowerPoint, Mentimeter, Moodle, and social media are useful, but many seniors struggle with basic tech navigation. Fake news awareness and web security are crucial components of digital education.
Turkey: Seniors prefer printed materials but are also interested in social media and digital apps. Gamification and interactive tasks can improve engagement.
Italy: Tools like Google Translate, WhatsApp, and Facebook are widely used, but clear learning objectives are essential to prevent frustration.
Austria: Multimedia resources and hands-on practice are key. AI-generated fake content is becoming harder to detect, requiring strong digital literacy training.
Best Practices Across Countries
Simplify digital interfaces and use large fonts/icons.
Teach cybersecurity and critical thinking skills.
Incorporate gamification and interactive tasks.
Use familiar platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp.
Provide continuous guidance and reinforcement exercises.
The spread of disinformation and misinformation poses risks to democracy, public health, and social cohesion, particularly affecting older adults who often lack adequate media literacy. The BonJour project aims to bridge this gap by enhancing media literacy, journalism skills, and digital competencies for people over 55, fostering their social activism, and reducing the generational digital divide through blended learning formats.
Project number: 2023-1-IT02-KA220-ADU-000160320
Webpage: www.bonjour-project.eu/
This survey assesses the ability to remember information, which is the first and lowest level of Bloom’s Taxonomy – a framework for classifying educational learning objectives. Bloom’s Taxonomy consists of six levels: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyse, Evaluate, and Create. Each level represents a step toward deeper learning and critical thinking.
At the “Remember” level, learners are expected to recall facts, concepts, and key information. This is essential for building knowledge and serves as the foundation for higher-order thinking. Our survey focuses on how well participants remember information after reading, specifically in three areas:
R5: Ability to recall key ideas from a text after reading.
R15: Ability to remember previously read information when needed.
R19: General recollection of what was learned in school.
This is the graphic visualisation of the questions addressing “Remember” (From Bloom’s taxonomy).
Summary of Results
R5 – Recalling Key Ideas After Reading
A large majority (24 out of 28 respondents) agreed or fully agreed that they can recall key ideas from a text.
Only 4 respondents were neutral, and none disagreed.
This suggests that most participants feel confident in remembering key ideas after reading.
R15 – Remembering Information When Needed
23 out of 28 respondents expressed agreement or full agreement with this statement.
7 respondents were neutral, and only 1 showed slight disagreement.
This indicates that most participants can recall information when necessary, though some may find it challenging.
R19 – Remembering School Learning
Responses were more varied, with only 3 people agreeing or fully agreeing that they remember much from school.
13 respondents were neutral, while 15 expressed some level of disagreement.
This suggests that many people struggle to remember school content, possibly due to time passed or lack of relevance in daily life.
Key Insights
Respondents generally feel confident in recalling information immediately after reading and when needed.
Long-term memory of school learning appears weaker, with many either neutral or disagreeing.
No strong disagreement was recorded for short-term recall (R5 and R15), reinforcing the idea that reading helps with retention in the short term.
Diese Umfrage bewertet die Fähigkeit, sich an Informationen zu erinnern, was die erste und niedrigste Stufe der Bloom’schen Taxonomie ist – ein Rahmenwerk zur Klassifizierung von Bildungszielen. Bloom’s Taxonomie besteht aus sechs Stufen: Erinnern, Verstehen, Anwenden, Analysieren, Bewerten und Erstellen. Jede Stufe stellt einen Schritt zu tieferem Lernen und kritischem Denken dar.
Auf der “Erinnern”-Stufe wird von Lernenden erwartet, dass sie Fakten, Konzepte und Schlüsselinformationen abrufen können. Dies ist entscheidend für den Wissensaufbau und dient als Grundlage für höheres Denken. Unsere Umfrage konzentriert sich darauf, wie gut sich die Teilnehmenden nach dem Lesen an Informationen erinnern, insbesondere in drei Bereichen:
R5: Fähigkeit, nach dem Lesen eines Textes zentrale Ideen zu erinnern.
R15: Fähigkeit, sich bei Bedarf an zuvor gelesene Informationen zu erinnern.
R19: Allgemeine Erinnerung an in der Schule gelerntes Wissen.
Dies ist die grafische Darstellung der Fragen zur Stufe “Erinnern” (nach Bloom’s Taxonomie).
Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse
R5 – Erinnern zentraler Ideen nach dem Lesen
Eine große Mehrheit (24 von 28 Teilnehmenden) stimmte zu oder stimmte vollständig zu, dass sie sich nach dem Lesen an zentrale Ideen erinnern können.
Nur 4 Teilnehmende waren neutral, und niemand widersprach.
Dies deutet darauf hin, dass die meisten Teilnehmenden sich nach dem Lesen sicher an zentrale Ideen erinnern können.
R15 – Erinnern von Informationen bei Bedarf
23 von 28 Teilnehmenden stimmten zu oder stimmten vollständig zu.
7 Teilnehmende waren neutral, und nur 1 äußerte leichte Ablehnung.
Dies zeigt, dass die meisten Teilnehmenden sich bei Bedarf an Informationen erinnern können, obwohl einige dies als schwierig empfinden.
R19 – Erinnern von Schulwissen
Die Antworten waren hier vielfältiger. Nur 3 Personen stimmten zu oder vollständig zu, dass sie sich an viel aus der Schule erinnern.
13 Teilnehmende waren neutral, während 15 in gewissem Maße widersprachen.
Dies zeigt, dass viele Schwierigkeiten haben, sich an Schulwissen zu erinnern, möglicherweise aufgrund der Zeit, die vergangen ist, oder weil es im Alltag nicht relevant ist.
Zentrale Erkenntnisse
Die Teilnehmenden fühlen sich sicher darin, sich direkt nach dem Lesen und bei Bedarf an Informationen zu erinnern.
Die langfristige Erinnerung an Schulwissen erscheint schwächer, viele waren neutral oder stimmten nicht zu.
Keine starke Ablehnung wurde für das kurzfristige Erinnern (R5 und R15) verzeichnet, was darauf hinweist, dass das Lesen das Behalten von Informationen kurzfristig unterstützt.
This text summarises the results of the focus rounds implemented at the project’s start. The provided feedback was analysed and brought into a readable way by the team from Fundacja PSP (Poland).
Media educators play a crucial role in helping older adults navigate the evolving landscape of journalism in the digital age. As misinformation and fake news become increasingly prevalent, seniors must develop critical thinking skills, fact-checking abilities, and responsible information-sharing practices.
Teaching strategies should focus on practical applications, hands-on learning, and fostering media literacy as a means of social empowerment.
1. Understanding the Changing Nature of Journalism
Country-Based Overview
Poland (PSP & IFAE): Media educators should explain the changing role of journalism, including the rise of civic and guerrilla journalism and how digital platforms influence the spread of news. It is essential to highlight that journalistic standards—fact-based reporting, reliability of sources, and separating opinions from facts—remain unchanged.
Turkey: Emphasizes the opportunity digital platforms provide for tracking news and comparing media sources over time. Journalists and media educators must consider their audiences’ needs and capabilities when producing content.
Italy: Focuses on helping seniors select trustworthy media sources, analyse articles in group settings, and understand citizen journalism. Seniors should be made aware that anyone can publish online, making source verification essential.
Austria: Stresses the importance of critical thinking, teaching seniors to evaluate who is sharing information, their motives, and whether the content has real value.
Best Practices Across Countries
Explain the evolution of journalism, including new forms like citizen journalism.
Highlight the difference between professional journalism and opinion-based content.
Teach seniors how to evaluate news sources and detect media biases.
Use real-life case studies to illustrate the mechanics of news production.
Encourage active discussions on the role and impact of modern journalism.
2. Preventing the Spread of Fake News and Misinformation
Country-Based Overview
Poland (PSP & IFAE): Educators must teach fact-checking techniques, how misinformation spreads, and how to analyse manipulative techniques. Hands-on exercises can be effective, such as experimenting with fake news creation (while considering ethical concerns).
Turkey: Learners should be taught to verify sources, question shocking news, and avoid automatically sharing images or articles without proper validation. Educators should emphasize the negative consequences of spreading misinformation.
Italy: Seniors should ask key questions before sharing news: What is the source? Are there other similar reports? Why do I want to share this? Encouraging cross-referencing multiple sources is essential.
Austria: Seniors should use critical thinking when consuming and sharing news. They should focus on fact-checking multiple reliable sources, recognizing bias, and understanding the motives behind information.
3. Encouraging Responsible News Consumption and Sharing
Country-Based Overview
Poland (PSP & IFAE): Media educators should explain how emotions influence information processing and the psychological mechanisms behind viral misinformation. Educators can create discussion groups where seniors analyse and verify news articles together.
Turkey: Emphasizes educating seniors on the importance of reliable sources and training them in critical news analysis. Seniors must understand that not everything online is trustworthy.
Italy: Encourages a structured approach to information verification, urging seniors to read before sharing, critically examine URLs, and consult multiple sources.
Austria: Seniors must apply common sense when evaluating information and avoid sharing content impulsively. Fact-checking should be a routine habit rather than an occasional action.
Best Practices Across Countries
Train seniors to recognize unreliable sources and misleading headlines.
Encourage discussion-based learning—seniors learn best when analysing news collectively.
Promote a “fact-checking first” culture—read, verify, and discuss before sharing.
Introduce simple verification tools such as fact-checking websites and browser extensions.
Emphasize the long-term impact of misinformation—how it affects society and personal credibility.
4. Teaching Digital and Media Literacy for Social Empowerment
Country-Based Overview
Poland (PSP & IFAE): Media educators should explain online media trends and teach seniors how to find high-quality journalism. Discussions should explore why journalism matters and how it functions in society.
Turkey: Seniors should be taught how to navigate online media independently, empowering them to compare sources and identify misinformation.
Italy: The focus should be on equal access to digital news sources, helping seniors develop informed media consumption habits.
Austria: Media literacy should include basic digital skills, recognizing biases, and understanding how media narratives are shaped.
Best Practices Across Countries
Explain how media trends emerge and why certain narratives dominate.
Help seniors distinguish between reliable and misleading journalism.
Teach about digital rights and equal access to quality information.
Develop personal media consumption strategies for seniors.
Promote active engagement in media rather than passive consumption.
The spread of disinformation and misinformation poses risks to democracy, public health, and social cohesion, particularly affecting older adults who often lack adequate media literacy. The BonJour project aims to bridge this gap by enhancing media literacy, journalism skills, and digital competencies for people over 55, fostering their social activism, and reducing the generational digital divide through blended learning formats.
Project number: 2023-1-IT02-KA220-ADU-000160320
Webpage: www.bonjour-project.eu/
This text summarises the results of the focus rounds implemented at the project’s start. The team from Fundacja PSP (Poland) analysed and translated the provided feedback into readable form. This part focuses on the new-to-develop “Media Educator”.
Profile of the Media Educator for Adults 55+
This document provides insights into media educators’ roles, responsibilities, and competencies in working with adults aged 55 and older. It presents findings from several countries, highlighting the required skills, recommended teaching approaches, and existing training or certification programs. Below is a structured summary of the key findings.
1. Role and Responsibilities of a Media Educator
Each country defines the media educator’s role as a mentor, facilitator, and guide rather than a traditional teacher. The main focus is on supporting seniors in navigating digital media, developing critical thinking skills, and overcoming technological fears.
Key Responsibilities Across Countries
Supporting learners emotionally and socially, bridging the intergenerational gap.
Adapting to different learning personalities and traditional teaching expectations.
Fostering independent learning rather than passive knowledge reception.
Being flexible, resistant to criticism, and open to continuous learning.
Country-Based Overview
Poland (PSP & IFAE): The educator must act as both a mentor and a partner, ensuring seniors feel empowered to learn at any age. The role involves teaching and helping seniors apply media literacy skills in real life. The educator must also be prepared for dominant personalities and traditional learners who may resist new teaching methods.
Portugal: Information is outdated, and no clear definition is provided.
Turkey: The educator must deeply understand the learners’ behaviours, sensitivities, and preferences. A needs analysis is essential before starting instruction.
Italy: The media educator’s primary responsibility is to support seniors in accessing digital tools, recognizing online risks, and using media for social inclusion. Educators should take a friendly and companion-like approach.
Austria: The role involves teaching digital skills, building confidence, and reducing fear. The educator should create motivation and emphasize the value of lifelong learning.
Media educators working with seniors need a combination of pedagogical, communication, digital, and emotional intelligence skills to be effective.
Country-Based Overview
Poland (PSP & IFAE): Educators must master group dynamics, active listening, and assertiveness. They need to be prepared for disruptive learners, strong personalities, and age-specific cognitive challenges.
Portugal: No clear competencies are outlined.
Turkey: The most important skill is digital literacy, ensuring seniors can access and use digital tools effectively.
Italy: The educator must have strong pedagogical skills to make digital skills accessible for older learners. They should be capable of explaining digital platforms, social media, and online risks in simple terms.
Austria: Emphasis is placed on critical thinking, recognizing misinformation, and overcoming fear of mistakes.
Core Competencies Across Countries:
Pedagogical Skills: Understanding adult learning strategies and adapting methods for seniors.
Communication Skills: Using clear, slow speech, large fonts, and accessible language.
Digital Competencies: Teaching practical digital skills such as smartphone use, social media, and online safety.
Group Dynamics & Emotional Intelligence: Managing diverse personalities, fostering trust, and handling criticism constructively.
The document highlights the need for engaging, hands-on, and flexible teaching methods tailored to the needs of older adults in all countries.
Country-Based Overview
Poland (PSP & IFAE): Educators should use interactive teaching to ensure learners can apply real-life media skills. Preparation is key, and educators must stay informed about current events and trends.
Portugal: No details are provided.
Turkey: Teaching should be based on individual needs and preferences, ensuring learners feel comfortable and respected.
Italy: The approach should be friendly and supportive, guiding seniors to explore digital tools at their own pace. The educator should focus on real-life applications of digital technology.
Austria emphasizes short, practical sessions, hands-on learning, and a mix of in-person and online formats. To create an open learning environment, fear of mistakes should be addressed early.
Best Practices Across Countries
Short and Interactive Sessions: To accommodate limited attention spans.
Practical, Hands-On Learning: Ensuring learners can immediately apply their learning.
Adaptation to Seniors’ Needs: Slower speech, simplified terminology, and larger text displays.
Safe and Encouraging Learning Environment: Mistakes should be seen as part of the learning process.
Mixed Learning Formats: Combining in-person guidance with digital resources.
Some countries suggest specific training programs, while others emphasize the importance of coaching skills and on-the-job experience.
General Recommendations
Trainer’s Training: Educators should have instructional design and adult education training.
Coaching & Mentorship Skills: Emotional intelligence, patience, and communication are key.
Digital Literacy Certifications: Some countries suggest educators pursue digital skills training to stay updated.
On-the-Job Experience: Many educators learn best through practice and direct engagement with seniors.
Country-Based Overview
Poland (PSP & IFAE): While formal training is beneficial, a “human attitude” and coaching professionalism are often more important. A trainer’s training program can help structure lessons effectively.
Portugal: No recommendations provided.
Turkey: It recommends an 80-hour certified program from Istanbul University designed for media educators working with older adults.
Italy: No specific certifications are mentioned, but digital and pedagogical skills training is essential.
Austria: No formal certifications are listed, but the ability to guide learners through critical thinking and hands-on practice is emphasized.
This document summarises media educators’ complex and evolving role for adults aged 55+. While different countries have specific approaches, several common principles emerge:
Media educators must act as mentors and facilitators, not just teachers.
Strong interpersonal and emotional intelligence skills are required to manage diverse learners.
Pedagogical adaptability is essential—teaching methods should be flexible and customized.
Practical, hands-on learning is more effective than theory-based approaches.
Building confidence in older learners is crucial—fear of mistakes must be eliminated.
Training and certifications vary across countries, but coaching experience and digital competency are universally valued.
The spread of disinformation and misinformation poses risks to democracy, public health, and social cohesion, particularly affecting older adults who often lack adequate media literacy. The BonJour project aims to bridge this gap by enhancing media literacy, journalism skills, and digital competencies for people over 55, fostering their social activism, and reducing the generational digital divide through blended learning formats.
Project number: 2023-1-IT02-KA220-ADU-000160320
Webpage: www.bonjour-project.eu/
This survey assesses the ability to understand information, which corresponds to the second level of Bloom’s Taxonomy: “Understand”. Bloom’s Taxonomy is a framework that classifies learning objectives into six levels: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyse, Evaluate, and Create. Each level represents a step toward deeper learning and critical thinking.
At the “Understand” level, learners should be able to interpret, summarise, and explain information in their own words. They should also recognise relationships between different pieces of information and compare different viewpoints. Our survey examines how well participants understand and process information, focusing on four areas:
V7: Understanding texts from different fields.
V21: Collecting and comparing different opinions.
V22: Reformulating information in their own words.
V25: Recognising connections, nuances, and underlying messages in statements.
Visualisation of the Bloom’s field “Understand”
Summary of Results
V7 – Understanding Texts from Different Fields
26 out of 31 respondents agreed or fully agreed that they can understand texts from different subject areas.
Only 4 respondents remained neutral, while none disagreed.
This suggests that most participants feel confident in their ability to comprehend a variety of texts.
V21 – Comparing Different Opinions
21 out of 31 respondents expressed agreement or full agreement with this statement.
9 respondents remained neutral, and only 1 expressed slight disagreement.
This indicates that while most participants actively compare different viewpoints, some may feel less comfortable doing so.
V22 – Reformulating Information
20 respondents agreed or fully agreed that they can reformulate information in their own words.
11 respondents were neutral, and none disagreed.
The relatively high number of neutral responses suggests that reformulating information is a skill that some participants find more challenging.
V25 – Recognising Connections and Nuances
This area received the highest level of agreement, with 28 out of 31 respondents agreeing or fully agreeing.
Only 3 respondents were neutral, while none disagreed.
This suggests that most participants are aware of deeper meanings, subtle differences, and underlying messages in texts.
Key Insights
Participants generally feel confident in understanding texts from different fields and recognising nuances in statements.
Comparing different opinions is slightly less common, with some respondents feeling neutral about this skill.
Reformulating information appears to be the most challenging aspect, as a relatively high number of respondents remained neutral.
No participants expressed strong disagreement with any of the statements, indicating a generally good level of understanding among the respondents.
Diese Umfrage bewertet die Fähigkeit, Informationen zu verstehen, was der zweiten Stufe der Bloom’schen Taxonomie: “Verstehen” entspricht. Die Bloom’sche Taxonomie ist ein Modell zur Klassifizierung von Lernzielen in sechs Stufen: Erinnern, Verstehen, Anwenden, Analysieren, Bewerten und Erstellen. Jede Stufe stellt einen Schritt zu tieferem Lernen und kritischem Denken dar.
Auf der “Verstehen”-Stufe sollten Lernende in der Lage sein, Informationen zu interpretieren, zusammenzufassen und mit eigenen Worten zu erklären. Sie sollten außerdem Zusammenhänge zwischen verschiedenen Informationen erkennen und unterschiedliche Standpunkte vergleichen können. Unsere Umfrage untersucht, wie gut die Teilnehmenden Informationen verstehen und verarbeiten, mit Fokus auf vier Bereiche:
V7: Verstehen von Texten aus verschiedenen Bereichen.
V21: Sammeln und Vergleichen unterschiedlicher Meinungen.
V22: Neuformulieren von Informationen in eigenen Worten.
V25: Erkennen von Zusammenhängen, Nuancen und impliziten Botschaften in Aussagen.
Visualisierung des Bloom-Bereichs “Verstehen”
Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse
V7 – Verstehen von Texten aus verschiedenen Bereichen
26 von 31 Teilnehmenden stimmten zu oder vollständig zu, dass sie Texte aus verschiedenen Fachbereichen verstehen können.
Nur 4 Teilnehmende blieben neutral, während niemand widersprach.
Dies deutet darauf hin, dass die meisten Teilnehmenden sich sicher im Verstehen verschiedener Texte fühlen.
V21 – Vergleich unterschiedlicher Meinungen
21 von 31 Teilnehmenden stimmten zu oder vollständig zu.
9 Teilnehmende blieben neutral, und nur 1 äußerte leichte Ablehnung.
Dies zeigt, dass viele Teilnehmende aktiv unterschiedliche Standpunkte vergleichen, aber einige sich dabei unsicher fühlen.
V22 – Neuformulieren von Informationen
20 Teilnehmende stimmten zu oder vollständig zu, dass sie Informationen in eigenen Worten neu formulieren können.
11 Teilnehmende blieben neutral, während niemand widersprach.
Die relativ hohe Anzahl neutraler Antworten deutet darauf hin, dass einige diese Fähigkeit als herausfordernd empfinden.
V25 – Erkennen von Zusammenhängen und Nuancen
Dieser Bereich erhielt die höchste Zustimmung. 28 von 31 Teilnehmenden stimmten zu oder vollständig zu.
Nur 3 Teilnehmende waren neutral, während niemand widersprach.
Dies zeigt, dass die meisten Teilnehmenden gut in der Lage sind, tiefere Bedeutungen, feine Unterschiede und implizite Botschaften in Texten zu erkennen.
Zentrale Erkenntnisse
Die meisten Teilnehmenden fühlen sich sicher beim Verstehen von Texten aus verschiedenen Bereichen und beim Erkennen von Nuancen.
Der Vergleich unterschiedlicher Meinungen fällt einigen schwerer, da hier eine höhere Anzahl neutraler Antworten vorliegt.
Das Neuformulieren von Informationen scheint für einige herausfordernder zu sein, da viele neutral blieben.
Kein Teilnehmender zeigte starke Ablehnung, was auf ein insgesamt gutes Verständnisniveau hinweist.
The questionnaire Creating (of the BonJour! Project) explores key aspects of creativity and interaction with textual information. It examines the ability to combine information from multiple texts, express the same content in various ways, and form impressions by integrating diverse information. It also assesses attitudes toward originality, with a statement suggesting that nothing entirely new can be created. Additionally, it evaluates the ability to recognize and modify text structures and the willingness to discuss new opinions within familiar texts, highlighting critical engagement and openness.
Diagram of the evaluation for the dimension “Create and create” evaluation questionnaire – Diagramm der Auswertung zur Dimension “Erstellen und Schaffen” evaluiation Questionnaire
C2: Combining Information from Different Texts
The respondents express that they enjoy combining information from various sources. This indicates strong synthetic abilities, as they are capable of integrating information and identifying new connections. Additionally, it proves that they act proactively in information processing. Rather than considering individual texts in isolation, they compare and link content to develop a more comprehensive understanding.
The evaluation shows that 14 respondents agree and 10 respondents strongly agree, reflecting clear support for this statement. The majority recognize this competence in themselves.
C6: Expressing Content in Different Ways
This statement highlights that the respondents recognize that a single piece of content can be expressed in various ways. This demonstrates flexibility in thinking, as they are open to alternative perspectives. Additionally, creativity is evident, as they can use different text styles to communicate their ideas.
The evaluation shows a high level of agreement: 10 respondents agree, while 19 strongly agree. This suggests that the majority see this ability as part of their mindset.
C8: Forming Impressions by Combining Information
The respondents form impressions by linking various pieces of information. This reflects good judgment skills, as they evaluate information and arrive at well-founded conclusions. Their ability for cross-linking is also evident, as they do not view information in isolation but integrate it into a complex overall picture.
The results indicate that 14 respondents agree and 14 strongly agree, indicating broad recognition of this competence.
C9: Scepticism About Innovation
The statement that everything already exists and nothing entirely new can be created is viewed sceptically. This suggests a certain reluctance towards innovation. It may indicate that respondents perceive innovation as challenging or consider its potential limited in the context of their experiences.
The evaluation shows that 13 respondents strongly disagree and 7 slightly disagree, suggesting general rejection or low identification with this perspective.
C13: Recognizing and Changing Text Structure
The respondents indicate that they can recognize and adapt the structure of a text. This reflects a high level of text comprehension, as they can analyse linguistic tools and understand the author’s intent. At the same time, they demonstrate text design competence, as they can modify texts to improve them or adapt them to different purposes.
The evaluation shows that 13 respondents agree and 7 strongly agree. These abilities are important to many respondents, though not universally.
C20: Discussing New Opinions
The feedback indicates that the respondents enjoy discussing new opinions presented in familiar texts. This demonstrates a high level of willingness to engage in discussion, as they are open to new perspectives and ready to question their own views. A deep level of text analysis is also evident, as the respondents critically engage with content and reflect on new opinions in a well-founded manner.
The evaluation shows a majority of agreement: 14 respondents agree, and 5 strongly agree. This suggests that most respondents consider this competence important.
The survey aims to explore behaviour and approaches to information. Approximately 150 people aged 50+ across various European countries participated. In Austria, 45 individuals were invited, of whom 31 provided complete responses (response rate: 69%).
The survey was structured into six different dimensions, each containing between three and six questions. The closed-ended questions followed the Likert scale concept with five levels of agreement. Some control questions were formulated to encourage reverse responses. The six dimensions are Information Analysis, Evaluating and Assessing, Creating and Innovating, Remembering, Understanding, and Applying.
Übersetzung in Deutsch
Im Folgenden wird die Übersetzung in Deutsch veröffentlicht, da die Umfrage im Wesentlich deutschsprachige Teilnehmer aus Österreich umfasst.
C2: Informationen aus verschiedenen Texten kombinieren
Der Befragte bringt zum Ausdruck, dass die Befragten gerne Informationen aus verschiedenen Quellen kombinieren. Dies weist auf starke synthetische Fähigkeiten hin, da sie in der Lage sind, Informationen zusammenzuführen und neue Zusammenhänge zu erkennen. Zusätzlich zeigt sich, dass sie in der Informationsverarbeitung proaktiv handeln. Anstatt einzelne Texte isoliert zu betrachten, vergleichen und verknüpfen sie Inhalte, um ein umfassenderes Verständnis zu entwickeln.
Die Auswertung zeigt, dass 14 Befragte zustimmen und 10 Befragte volle Zustimmung äußern, was eine klare Unterstützung dieser Aussage widerspiegelt. Die Mehrheit erkennt diese Kompetenz bei sich selbst.
C6: Inhalte auf verschiedene Arten ausdrücken
Diese Aussage verdeutlicht, dass die Befragten erkennen, dass ein Inhalt auf unterschiedliche Weise ausgedrückt werden kann. Dies belegt die Flexibilität im Denken, da sie offen für alternative Perspektiven sind. Zudem zeigt sich Kreativität, da sie in der Lage ist, unterschiedliche Textstile einzusetzen, um ihre Gedanken zu kommunizieren.
Die Auswertung verdeutlicht eine hohe Zustimmung: 10 Befragte stimmen zu, während 19 volle Zustimmung zeigen. Dies deutet darauf hin, dass die Mehrheit diese Fähigkeit als Teil ihrer Denkweise ansieht.
C8: Eindruck durch Kombination von Informationen
Die Befragten bilden sich einen Eindruck, indem sie verschiedene Informationen verknüpfen. Dies zeugt von einem guten Urteilsvermögen, da sie Informationen bewerten und zu einem fundierten Urteil gelangt. Gleichzeitig wird ihre Fähigkeit zur Querverknüpfung sichtbar, indem sie Informationen nicht isoliert betrachten, sondern in einem komplexen Gesamtbild zusammenführen.
Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass sowohl 14 Befragte zustimmen als auch 14 volle Zustimmung geben, was auf eine breite Anerkennung dieser Kompetenz hinweist.
C9: Skepsis gegenüber Neuem
Die Aussage, dass alles bereits existiere und nichts völlig Neues geschaffen werden könne, wird skeptisch betrachtet. Dies deutet auf eine gewisse Zurückhaltung gegenüber Innovation hin. Es könnte bedeuten, dass die Befragten Innovation als schwierig wahrnehmen oder diese im Kontext seiner Erfahrungen für begrenzt halten.
Die Auswertung zeigt, dass 13 Befragte überhaupt nicht zustimmen und 7 wenig Zustimmung äußern, was auf eine allgemeine Ablehnung oder geringe Identifikation mit dieser Sichtweise schließen lässt.
C13: Textstruktur erkennen und ändern
Die Befragten gibt an, die Struktur eines Textes erkennen und anpassen zu können. Dies weist auf ein hohes Maß an Textverständnis hin, da sie in der Lage sind, sprachliche Mittel zu analysieren und die Intention des Autors zu verstehen. Gleichzeitig legen sie Textgestaltungskompetenz an den Tag, da sie Texte modifizieren können, um sie zu verbessern oder an unterschiedliche Zwecke anzupassen.
Die Auswertung zeigt, dass 13 Befragte zustimmen und 7 volle Zustimmung äußern. Diese Fähigkeiten sind für viele Befragte von Bedeutung, wenn auch nicht durchweg.
C20: Diskussion über neue Meinungen
Die Rückmeldungen zeigen, dass die Befragten gerne über neue Meinungen diskutieren, die in bekannten Texten auftauchen. Dies zeigt eine hohe Diskussionsbereitschaft, da sie offen für neue Perspektiven und bereit sind , ihre eigenen Ansichten zu hinterfragen. Ebenso wird eine tiefgehende Textanalyse deutlich, da die Befragten sich kritisch mit Inhalten auseinandersetzen und neue Meinungen fundiert reflektieren können.
Die Auswertung zeigt eine mehrheitliche Zustimmung: 14 Befragte stimmen zu und 5 äußern volle Zustimmung. Dies deutet darauf hin, dass eine Mehrheit diese Kompetenz als wichtig erachtet.
Die Umfrage versucht, das Verhalten und die Herangehensweise an Informationen zu erforschen. Dazu wurden in Europa in etwa 150 Personen aus der Altersgruppe 50+ in verschiedenen Ländern befragt. In Österreich wurden 45 Personen eingeladen, von denen 31 vollständige Antworten lieferten (Rücklauf 69 %).
Die Umfrage gliederte sich in 6 verschiedene Dimensionen, zu denen zwischen 3 und 6 Fragen gestellt wurden. Die geschlossenen Fragen folgten dem Likert Konzept mit 5 Stufen der Zustimmungen. Einige Kontrollfragen wurden für eine umgekehrte Beantwortung formuliert. Die sechs Dimensionen sind Analyse von Informationen, Evaluieren und Bewerten, Erstellen und Schaffen, Erinnern, Verstehen, und Anwenden
